About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the whole case falls out unless everything -- >> so it's not the poison fruit thing? >> there is a poison fruit provision, standard. but it's very rare for it to pollute an entire case. >> let me ask you practically, why don't the law enforcement officials, the federal officials up there who have him in custody at the hospital, why didn't they just
with as a consequence as an enemy combatant or enemy belligerent which would involve delaying his miranda rights. >> you don't want to turn over intelligence gathering over to a criminal attorney. under the law, there is no right to legal counsel when you are egg being questioned for national security purposes. i hope the obama administration will allow us that and they have a bad track record. >> and this is not the course the administration will take. they will take reading him his rights after national security exception has run out and prosecuting him in a federal court as well. >> molly: thank you. >> megyn: more breaking news. news reporting that federal charges have now been filed against the surviving suspect. though they are reportedly being filed under seal. that means we don't get to see them. they will have to let it's know what the charges are but perhaps not all the supporting information. in a case of this magnitude there is no way they are going to keep the charges private and not public. in other words, what exactly has he been charged with? a terrorist act, using weapons of mass destru
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
and lucid enough to get his miranda rights read to him, also thoughts he shot himself through the neck, that's been really brought into question now, as an eyewitness there to help take him down, looks like a cut or maybe something exploded, a shrapnel cut, those that the boston marathon, those that suffered during the explosion. he said i'm motivated by religion, that religion being islamic extremism or islam. he went on to say i have no outside ties. i'm not part of a larger group. isn't that convenient. >>steve: both brothers went to a mosque in cambridge. it was the older brother. clearly the younger brother was following the older brother in life in so many different ways. we told you a little bit yesterday about some of the outbursts the older brother had at the mosque in cambridge. for instance, back in november where they were talking about it was okay for muslims to celebrate american holidays like thanksgiving and the 4th of july and tamerlan, the older brother, stood up and argued. then in january there was a praise for martin luther king jr. and he got up and called someone a hyp
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)